Diversity and Differentiation in Higher Education Systems

[Pages:22]Diversity and Differentiation in Higher Education Systems

Frans van Vught

CHET anniversary conference Cape Town, 16 November 2007

2

1 Introduction

This presentation addresses the concepts of diversity and differentiation in higher education systems. In this presentation I intend to explore the literature regarding these concepts and to address a number of related higher education policy issues. I will also offer a conceptual framework which seeks to explain why processes of differentiation and dedifferentiation take place in systems of higher education

Differentiation will be defined as a process in which new entities emerge in a system (in our case: a system of higher education). This definition is partly in line with Smelser (1959) who describes differentiation as a process whereby a social unit changes into two or more other units. According to Smelser, the "new social units are structurally distinct from each other, but taken together they are functionally equivalent to the original unit" (Smelser, 1959, p. 2). However, unlike Smelser, I should like to include in the definition the emergence of completely new entities. Whereas Smelser limits his definition to the splitting up of existing units into new ones, I, like Rhoades, accept the coming into existence of completely new units as part of the definition (Rhoades, 1983, p. 285). Differentiation as a concept should be distinguished from the concept of diversity. Diversity is a term indicating the variety of entities within a system. While differentiation denotes a dynamic process, diversity refers to a static situation. Differentiation is the process in which new entities in a system emerge; diversity refers to the variety of the entities at a specific point in time (Huisman, 1995, p. 51). The framework to be presented will be directed to differentiation and diversity of higher education systems. This implies that the focus will be at the level of higher education systems rather than of higher education institutions or of sets of programs (of teaching and research) organised by these institutions. In terms of Birnbaum's (1983) typology of forms of diversity, the focus is on external diversity (a concept which refers to differences between higher education institutions), rather than on internal diversity (differences within higher education institutions). When discussing external diversity and processes of system differentiation, I will analyse the behaviour of the various `actors' in the system. These actors to a large extent are the higher education organisations that are part of a higher education system. I will interpret these organisations as `corporate actors' (Coleman, 1990, p. 531), and will assume that the explanation of social phenomena like differentiation and diversity is possible by means of analysing the behaviour and/or opinions of these corporate actors who need not necessarily be natural persons (although the activities of corporate actors are of course carried out by people).

In the higher education literature several forms of diversity are mentioned. In a survey of the literature Birnbaum (1983) identifies seven categories that are largely related to external diversity (Huisman, 1995):

? systemic diversity refers to differences in institutional type, size and control found within a higher education system;

3

? structural diversity refers to institutional differences resulting from historical and legal foundations, or differences in the internal division of authority among institutions;

? programmatic diversity relates to the degree level, degree area, comprehensiveness, mission and emphasis of programmes and services provided by institutions;

? procedural diversity describes differences in the ways that teaching, research and/or services are provided by institutions;

? reputational diversity communicates the perceived differences in institutions based on status and prestige;

? constituential diversity alludes to differences in students served and other constituents in the institutions (faculty, administration);

? values and climate diversity is associated with differences in social environment and culture.

For our purposes, the distinction between external and internal diversity is the crucial one. We will focus on the differences between institutions rather than on differences within institutions.

2 Classical studies

Generally speaking, the first comprehensive study on diversity and differentiation no doubt is Charles Darwin's Origin of Species published in 1859. Darwin's explanation of evolution and biological diversity definitely was radical at the time. He argued that diversity does not result out of divine creation or an overall master plan, but from an undirected, random process of adaptation to environmental circumstances in combination with successful sexual reproduction. Darwin's original theory of natural selection has been refined and supplemented over the years, but his basic concepts are still judged to be valid and have inspired many other theoretical frameworks.

Differentiation also has become a well-known concept in the social sciences. Here the first study of differentiation is of course Durkheim's classic The Division of Labor in Society (1893). Building on Durkheim (and Weber), Parsons designed his famous structural-functionalist conceptualisation of differentiation ( Parsons, 1966). Since Durkheim, many social scientists have contributed to the further theoretical conceptualisation of differentiation processes. However, as Rhoades (1990) points out, these contributions are directed to the effects rather than the causes of differentiation. In the evolutionary approach to differentiation, which has its roots in the classical studies of Marx and Spencer, differentiation is seen mainly as an element in the "adaptive processes of social systems which retain these structures, processes, etc. that lead to greater adaptation to the environment" (Campbell, 1965, p. 16). Similarly, the functionalists focus on the assumed needs and functions of social systems and hence tend to see differentiation as a component in a process of enhancing the adaptive capacity and the efficiency of social systems (Merton, 1968).

4

Nevertheless, the social sciences appear to contain less of an explanatory mechanism for processes of differentiation leading to higher levels of diversity than the biological theory of natural selection. Particularly based on economic theory, it often is argued that market mechanisms result in processes of differentiation and create optimum levels of diversity in a system. In analogy to the biological theory of natural selection, competition among social actors is assumed to select the strongest or the best in a certain context, while stimulating all actors to find niches to which they are best suited. The crucial difference between biological natural selection and market-driven adaptation is of course that social actors' behaviour is purposive and non-random. In social contexts rationality is part of the game. In the next paragraph I will introduce some of the more recent perspectives in organisational sociology that specifically address this issue of purposive behaviour in social systems.

3 Recent perspectives

The explanatory framework to be presented here draws heavily on three theoretical perspectives from organisational theory: the population ecology perspective, the resource dependency perspective and the institutional isomorphism perspective. Although these three perspectives have much in common, there are also some specific differences. As an introduction, let me briefly characterise each of the three perspectives. The population ecology approach is based on the Darwinian evolutionary point of view. According to Hannan and Freeman, two of the most important authors in this field, the population ecology approach concentrates "on the sources of variability and homogeneity of organisational forms... In doing so, it pays considerable attention to population dynamics, especially the processes of competition among diverse organisations for limited resources such as membership, capital and legitimacy" (1989, p. 13). The resource dependency perspective stresses the mutual processes of interaction between organisations and their environments. According to this approach, organisations on the one hand are dependent on their environments (which primarily consist of other organisations) but on the other hand these organisations are also able to influence their environments. "Rather than taking the environment as a given to which the organisation then adapts, it is considerably more realistic to consider the environment as an outcome of a process that involves both adaptation to the environment and attempts to change that environment" (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978, p. 222). The institutional isomorphism approach stresses that in order to survive, organisations have to adapt to the existence of and pressures by other organisations in their environment. These adaptation processes tend to lead to homogenisation, as organisations react more or less similarly to uniform environmental conditions. Isomorphism is a constraining process that forces organisations to resemble other organisations that face the same set of environmental conditions (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983).

5

Further on I will use the theoretical notions of these three perspectives to develop a conceptual framework that intends to explain the processes of differentiation and dedifferentiation in higher education systems. Before doing so, let us first focus on the various arguments in favour of diversity and differentiation in higher education systems, and let us address the most relevant studies on these concepts in the literature.

4 Arguments in favour of diversity

Diversity has been identified in the higher education literature as one of the major factors associated with the positive performance of higher education systems. Birnbaum (1983) presents an overview of the various arguments found in the literature in favour of external diversity (which I have adapted somewhat). Many of these arguments appear to be highly relevant in the context of higher education policy making.

First, it is often argued that increase of diversity of a higher education system is an important strategy to meet student needs. A more diversified system is assumed to be better able to offer access to higher education to students with different educational backgrounds and with a variety of histories of academic achievements. The argument is that in a diversified system, in which the performance of higher education institutions varies, each student is offered an opportunity to work and compete with students of similar background. Each student has the opportunity to find an educational environment in which chances for success are realistic. A second and related argument is that diversity provides for social mobility. By offering different modes of entry into higher education and by providing multiple forms of transfer, a diversified system stimulates upward mobility as well as honourable downward mobility. A diversified system allows for corrections of errors of choice; it provides extra opportunities for success; it rectifies poor motivation; and it broadens educational horizons. Third, diversity is supposed to meet the needs of the labour market. The point of view here is that in modern society an increasing variety of specialisations on the labour market is necessary to allow further economic and social development. A homogeneous higher education system is thought to be less able to respond to the diverse needs of the labour market than in diversified system A fourth argument is that diversity serves the political needs of interest groups. The idea is that a diverse system ensures the needs of different groups in society to have their own identity and their own political legitimation. In less diversified higher education systems the needs of specific groups may remain unaddressed, which may cause internal debates in a higher education system and various kinds of disruptions. A fifth, and well-known argument is that diversity permits the crucial combination of elite and mass higher education. Generally speaking, mass systems tend to be more diversified than elite systems, as mass systems absorb a more heterogeneous clientele and attempt to respond to a wider range of demands from the labour market. In his famous analysis of mass and elite systems, Trow (1979) has indicated that the survival of elite higher education depends on the existence of a comprehensive system of nonelite institutions. Essentially, Trow argues that only if a majority of the students

6

are offered the knowledge and skills that are relevant to find a position in the labour market, will a few elite institutions be able to survive. A sixth reason why diversity is an important objective for higher education systems is that diversity is assumed to increase the level of effectiveness of higher education institutions. This argument is made for instance by the Carnegie Commission (1973) which has suggested that institutional specialisation allows higher education institutions to focus their attention and energy, which helps them in producing higher levels of effectiveness. Finally, diversity is assumed to offer opportunities for experimenting with innovation. In diversified higher education systems, institutions have the option to assess the viability of innovations created by other institutions, without necessarily having to implement these innovations themselves. Diversity offers the possibility to explore the effects of innovative behaviour without the need to implement the innovation for all institutions at the same time. Diversity permits low-risk experimentation.

These various arguments in favour of external diversity show that diversity is usually assumed to be a worthwhile objective for higher education systems. Diversified higher education systems are supposed to produce higher levels of client-orientation (both regarding the needs of students and of the labour market), social mobility, effectiveness, flexibility, innovativeness, and stability. More diversified systems, generally speaking, are thought to be `better' than less diversified systems. And many governments have designed and implemented policies to increase the level of diversity of higher education systems.

Unfortunately, it is not always clear how an increase of a higher education system's diversity should be realised. The many governmental policies that have been developed and implemented do not always lead to the desired results. It appears that, although these concepts have a long tradition in the social sciences, diversity and differentiation are still only partly understood.

5 Studies on differentiation and diversity in higher education

The concepts of diversity and differentiation have been widely discussed in the higher education literature. In this section, I present a brief categorisation of the most influential studies (for a more elaborate overview see Huisman, 1995).

It appears that many studies on diversity and differentiation in higher education can be distinguished according to the question whether differentiation or dedifferentiation processes are assumed to take place in higher education systems. On the one hand there are studies that claim that higher education systems show an immanent drive towards differentiation and increasing levels of diversity. On the other hand there are studies that argue that higher education systems are characterised by dedifferentiation and decreasing levels of diversity.

7

Examples of the category of studies claiming an immanent drive towards increasing levels of diversity are Parsons and Platt (1973), and Clark (1978). In their well-known study on the U.S. higher education system, Parsons and Platt discuss, in addition to several other themes, the processes of differentiation within higher education systems. Their main argument appears to be that processes of differentiation occur when new functions emerge in a system. An example is the development of the graduate schools, which have come to be differentiated from undergraduate colleges. However, differentiation apparently does not necessarily imply the coming into existence of a new type of organisation, as the authors also argue that new functions can be integrated in existing organisations. Clark's argument regarding diversity and differentiation is based on his conviction that the growing complexity of bodies of knowledge brings along an ever-increasing fragmentation within and among higher education organisations. According to Clark (1983), the increasing complexity of higher education systems (and of the functions this system must fulfil) is an outcome of three related forces: the increasing variety of the student population, the growth of the labour market for academic graduates and the emergence and growth of new disciplines. The effects are ongoing differentiation processes and increasing levels of diversity. Emphasising that differentiation often is in the interest of groups and individuals, Clark underlines the immanent drive towards differentiation in higher education: "Once created and made valuable to a group, often to an alliance of groups, academic forms persist. Out of successive historical periods come additional forms, with birth rate greatly exceeding death rate. Differentiation is then an accumulation of historical deposits" (Clark, 1983, p. 221).

Next to the studies that claim that higher education systems show a more or less permanent drive towards differentiation stand the studies that argue that dedifferentiation is the name of the higher education game. Examples of this category of studies are Riesman (1956), Birnbaum (1983), and Rhoades (1990). In his classical study Constraint and Variety in American Education (1956), Riesman compares the U.S. higher education system with a kind of reptilian procession during which certain higher education institutions will move to the positions where other institutions were before. According to Riesman, this procession is the result of the typical behaviour of higher education institutions, which basically consists of lower status institutions trying to gain status by imitating higher status institutions (especially the prestigious research universities). This imitating behaviour, also indicated as "academic drift" (Neave, 1979), creates a tendency towards uniformity and decreasing levels of diversity. Birnbaum (1983) not only presents an elaborate classification on forms of diversity (in which seven forms of diversity are identified), he also tries to empirically assess the changes in external diversity in the U.S. higher education system between 1960 and 1980. His findings show that during this period the number of institutional types had not increased and thus that differentiation had not occurred. Birnbaum hypothesises that especially centralised state-level planning and the application of rigid criteria for the approval of new institutions and programs hamper differentiation processes. Governmental policies, says Birnbaum, may be a major factor in producing processes of dedifferentiation and decreasing levels of diversity. Rhoades' (1990) argument is that processes of dedifferentiation are the result of political competition between academic professionals and (external) lay groups, and governmental policies that structure these processes of competition. Rhoades indicates that as an effect of governmental policies and administrative systems in higher

8

education, the power of the academic professionals is often quite large. The power balance between academics and lay groups to a large extent determines whether differentiation actually occurs. Comparing the developments in the higher education systems of the U.K., France, Sweden and the U.S.A., Rhoades concludes that academics have been successful in defending their own norms and values and hence have prevented differentiation processes from taking place.

The various studies just presented show that external diversity and differentiation have been regularly addressed by higher education scholars. However, these studies also show that rather different points of view appear to exist regarding the direction of differentiation or dedifferentiation processes in higher education systems. Are these systems showing an immanent drive towards differentiation because of the emergence of new functions (Parsons and Platt) or because of the growing complexities of the bodies of knowledge and the variety of the student body and the labour market (Clark)? Or are systems of higher education to be characterised by immanent processes of dedifferentiation because of the imitating behaviour by lower status institutions (Riesman), centralised and uniform governmental policies (Birnbaum), or academic conservatism (Rhoades)?

In my own approach I will combine some of these factors into a conceptual framework which seeks to explain external diversity in higher education systems.

6 A theoretical framework for explaining differentiation and diversity in higher education systems

In this paragraph, I will try to sketch the framework for a theory of differentiation and diversity in higher education systems. My point of departure will be the well-known `open systems approach' in the social sciences. Using this approach, I interpret higher education as a system consisting of individual higher education organisations (being the components ? or subsystems ? of the higher education system) embedded in an environment which includes the social, political and economic conditions within which the higher education organisations need to operate. Being an open system, the higher education system is open to its environment, which implies that its components are both able to receive inputs (in the form of students, faculty, finances, and other resources) and to deliver outputs (in the form of graduates, research, results, and advice). This leads me to a first assumption for my theoretical framework:

Assumption 1: Organisations for higher education receive inputs from, and produce outputs for their environments.

To the still rather general open systems approach, I add the three (mutually related) theoretical perspectives from organisational theory that were briefly introduced earlier: the population ecology perspective, the resource dependency perspective and the institutional isomorphism perspective. The population ecology perspective has been sketched by Morgan (1986, p. 66) in the following terms: "Organisations, like organisms in nature, depend for survival on

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download